Current Events > If the housing market in the US didn't exist, would we be happier?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If housing in the US was deflationary and instead of thinking it as an investment, you only get to live there until you're dead--sort of similar to how Japan is running their economy--would the welfare of our country increase?

There would be less foreclosures, and presumably people would be able to afford services and goods relative to their income, instead of spending a great deal of money on rent/mortgages as the equity for their house goes up or down according to demand. With scarcity in mind, having ownership of land seems ridiculous, especially when you consider the fact that people are buying multiple houses expecting a stream of income, when in reality you only need one home to live in. With the way the housing market is running in the US, it makes me think that the numbers have become politicized and that it exist only to show that our GDP is exponentially increasing. When in reality, the sentiment and welfare of people could vastly differ.

Housing should be a right and not for profit tbh

CADE_FOSTER posted...

Housing should be a right and not for profit tbh

Either this or anyone willing should be filly allowed to go into the bush onto crown land (or whatever its called outside of canada) and build what they want and live off the land as long as that person doesn't expect any power or sewage or whatever beyond what they can do for themselves. Also it would have to be the sole residence and inhabited by no one other than the person building it... cause if not rich people would destroy every natural place left.

CADE_FOSTER posted...

Housing should be a right and not for profit tbh

EXACTLY.
Imagine if every millennial and gen z bought houses, what would happen to the price of homes for the younger generation? With the job market becoming even more scarce, it'll become increasingly difficult to afford housing in order maintain their livelihood.

This is where capitalism will fail.

CanuckCowboy posted...

Either this or anyone willing should be filly allowed to go into the bush onto crown land (or whatever its called outside of canada) and build what they want and live off the land as long as that person doesn't expect any power or sewage or whatever beyond what they can do for themselves. Also it would have to be the sole residence and inhabited by no one other than the person building it... cause if not rich people would destroy every natural place left.

or maybe a huge government intervention where the housing market is strictly controlled. So you're given maybe 2 acres of land but you have to return it after death.

I'd rather have to look for places I can actually afford, than being told which grey apartment block by the mercury smelter I'm going to live in (or else).

Questionmarktarius posted...

I'd rather have to look for places I can actually afford, than being told which grey apartment block by the mercury smelter I'm going to live in (or else).

same

If homelessness was not a threat to the majority of Americans, the country would be vastly different.

Questionmarktarius posted...

I'd rather have to look for places I can actually afford, than being told which grey apartment block by the mercury smelter I'm going to live in (or else).

DKBananaSlamma posted...

same

but what if the houses were much cheaper? If you were given the luxury to choose, it becomes a bidding war between everyone that wants the same location. Wouldn't that be a repeat of the same issues we're currently having?

It's hard to imagine this hypothetical world as just being "Everything else is the same but now houses are really cheap".

Iamdepressed posted...

you only get to live there until you're dead--sort of similar to how Japan is running their economy--

??? I think you're misinterpreting something or I'm just missing something. *Houses* are far more short term in Japan than America, but I don't think that impacts *property* ownership.

Anteaterking posted...

It's hard to imagine this hypothetical world as just being "Everything else is the same but now houses are really cheap".

??? I think you're misinterpreting something or I'm just missing something. *Houses* are far more short term in Japan than America, but I don't think that impacts *property* ownership.

I think there's a lot of causal link to social capital and the happiness index scale when it comes to the housing market. Simply, unaffordable housing = miserable people. Miserable people = low happiness.

Yes, I was trying to point out that because the housing market is short term in Japan. You basically buy a house to live in for 20-30 years and it gets broken down as the land is used to build other homes (you don't get to own the land in most cases). This impacts the price of the housing market as it makes it deflationary. Who is going to buy a house when there's no investment value? That drives down the price of homes and makes it affordable to rent or purchase. People can use the money they would have spent on rent/mortgage and spend it on something else.

Iamdepressed posted...

So you're given maybe 2 acres of land but you have to return it after death.

The solution to generational-wealth inequity is not going to be forbidding it.

Iamdepressed posted...

I think there's a lot of causal link to social capital and the happiness index scale when it comes to the housing market. Simply, unaffordable housing = miserable people. Miserable people = low happiness.

Unrelated to what I said. A country where no one is allowed to own more than one property and all property is ceded to the state on death isn't running the rest of the economy as standard capitalism. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying it's not just one step away from today.

Iamdepressed posted...

Yes, I was trying to point out that because the housing market is short term in Japan. You basically buy a house to live in for 20-30 years and it gets broken down as the land is used to build other homes (you don't get to own the land in most cases). This impacts the price of the housing market as it makes it deflationary. Who is going to buy a house when there's no investment value? That drives down the price of homes and makes it affordable to rent or purchase. People can use the money they would have spent on rent/mortgage and spend it on something else.

But these are all still owned by corporations/individuals. "Owning a house" isn't just about the physical bones of the house, it's about also having property and that you no longer have to pay monthly to some landlord who gets rich off of your payments.

Real estate in Japan still appreciates in value. Calling their housing "deflationary" is misleading.

Anteaterking posted...

it's about also having property and that you no longer have to pay monthly to some landlord who gets rich off of your payments.

If anything, this is a decent argument for ending property tax, as a concept.

Regulate the housing market by limiting ownership to 1x Residential Property per Adult US Citizen and require that the owner lives on their property or within reasonable travel vicinity of said property.